Male gaze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The male gaze is a concept coined by feminist film critic Laura Mulvey. It refers to the way visual arts are structured around a masculine viewer. It describes the tendency in visual culture to depict the world and women from a masculine point of view and in terms of men's attitudes.[1][2]

The male gaze consists of three different gazes:[3][4]

  • that of the person behind the camera,
  • that of the characters within the representation or film itself, and
  • the gaze of the spectator.


The concept was first developed by feminist film critic Laura Mulvey in her 1975 essay entitled "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema".[5] Mulvey posits that the gender power asymmetry is a controlling force in cinema and constructed for the pleasure of the male viewer, which is deeply rooted in patriarchal ideologies and discourses.[6] The concept has subsequently been prominent in feminist film theory, media studies, as well as communications and cultural studies. This term can also be linked to models of voyeurism, scopophilia, and narcissism.

The male gaze[7] occurs when the camera puts the audience into the perspective of a heterosexual man. It may linger over the curves of a woman's body, for instance[citation needed]. The woman is usually[citation needed] displayed on two different levels: as an erotic object for both the characters within the film and for the spectator who is watching the film. The man emerges as the dominant power within the created film fantasy. The woman is passive to the active gaze from the man. This adds an element of "patriarchal" order, and it is often seen in "illusionistic narrative film".[8] Mulvey argues that, in mainstream cinema, the male gaze typically takes precedence over the female gaze, reflecting an underlying power asymmetry.[9]

This inequality can be attributed to patriarchy which has been defined as a social ideology embedded in the belief systems of Western culture and in patriarchal societies. It is either masculine individuals or institutions created by these individuals that exert the power to determine what is considered "natural".[10] Over the course of time, these constructed beliefs begin to seem "natural" or "normal" because they are prevalent and carry out unchallenged, thus arguing that Western culture has adopted a dyadic, hierarchical ideology which sets masculinity in binary opposition to femininity thus creating levels of inferiority.[10]

Mulvey describes its two central forms that are based in Freud’s concept of scopophilia, as: "pleasure that is linked to sexual attraction (voyeurism in extremis) and scopophilic pleasure that is linked to narcissistic identification (the introjection of ideal egos)",[6] in order to demonstrate how women have historically been forced to view film through the "male gaze". This theory inevitably reinforces the presence of hegemonic ideologies that dominate our political and social contexts. It also suggests that the male gaze denies women their human identity; relegating them to the status of objects to be admired for physical appearance and male sexual desires and fantasies.

In "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", Mulvey discusses several different types of spectatorship that may occur while viewing a film. They can involve unconsciously or, in some cases, consciously engaging in the typical, ascribed societal roles of men and women.

In relation to phallocentrism, films may be viewed in "three different looks"; the first refers to the camera as it records the actual events of the film, the second describes the nearly voyeuristic act of the audience as one engages in watching the film itself, and the third refers to the characters that interact with one another throughout the film.[6] The main idea that seems to bring these actions together is that "looking" is generally seen as an active male role, while the passive role of being looked at is immediately adopted as a female characteristic. It is under the construction of patriarchy that Mulvey argues that women in film are tied to desire and that female characters hold an "appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact".[6] The female actor is never meant to represent a character that directly affects the outcome of a plot or keep the story line going, but is inserted into the film as a way of supporting the male role and "bearing the burden of sexual objectification" that he cannot.[6]

In other words, the woman is passive to the active gaze from the man and can be linked to scopophilia (or scoptophilia), which can be described as pleasure derived from looking. As an expression of sexuality, scopophilia refers to sexual pleasure derived from looking at erotic objects: erotic photographs, pornography, naked bodies, etc. In sum, according to Mulvey, the categories of pleasurable viewing are twofold: voyeurism, which derives pleasure from viewing a distant other, and projecting one’s fantasies, usually sexual, onto that person, and narcissism, a form of recognition of one’s self in the image of another we are viewing. Mulvey also believes that in order to enjoy a film as a woman, or any gender other than male, we must learn to identify with the male protagonist.[6]

Mulvey's essay also states that the female gaze is the same as the male gaze. This means that women look at themselves through the eyes of men.[9] The male gaze may be seen by a feminist either as a manifestation of unequal power between gazer and gazed, or as a conscious or subconscious attempt to develop that inequality. From this perspective, a woman who welcomes an objectifying gaze may be simply conforming to norms established to benefit men, thereby reinforcing the power of the gaze to reduce a recipient to an object. Welcoming such objectification may be viewed as akin to exhibitionism.[9]

The possibility of an analogous female gaze[11][12][13][14] may arise from considering the male gaze. Mulvey argues that "the male figure cannot bear the burden of sexual objectification. Man is reluctant to gaze…" Describing Wide Sargasso Sea (1966), by Jean Rhys, Nalini Paul indicates that the Antoinette character gazes at Rochester, placing a garland upon him, making him appear heroic: "Rochester does not feel comfortable with having this role enforced upon him; thus, he rejects it by removing the garland, and crushing the flowers."[9]

From the male perspective, a man possesses the gaze because he is a man, whereas a woman has the gaze only when she assumes the male gazer role — when she objectifies others by gazing at them like a man. Eva-Maria Jacobsson supports Paul's description of the "female gaze" as "a mere cross-identification with masculinity", yet evidence of women's objectification of men — the discrete existence of a female gaze — can be found in the "boy toy" ads published in teen magazines, for example, despite Mulvey's contention that the gaze is property of one gender. Whether or not this is an example of female gaze or rather an internalized male gaze is up for debate, along with the other ideas on this subject. In terms of power relationships, the gazer can direct a gaze upon members of the same gender for asexual reasons, such as comparing the gazer's body image and clothing to those of the gazed-at individual.[9][15]

With respect to Laura Mulvey's essay, note the following points stressed by Mulvey in a 2011 interview with Roberta Sassatelli: "First, that the 1975 article "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" was written as a polemic, and as Mandy Merck has described it, as a manifesto; so I had no interest in modifying the argument. Clearly I think, in retrospect from a more nuanced perspective, about the inescapability of the male gaze."[16]

Criticizing the male gaze[edit]

Matrixial gaze[edit]

Bracha Ettinger criticizes this notion of the male gaze by her proposition of a Matrixial Gaze.[17] The matrixial gaze is not operative where a "Male Gaze" is placed opposite to a "Female Gaze" and where both positive entities constitute each other from a lack (such an umbrella concept of the gaze would precisely be what scholars such as Slavoj Žižek claim is the Lacanian definition of "The Gaze"). Ettinger's proposal doesn't concern a subject and its object, existing or lacking. Rather, it concerns "trans-subjectivity" and shareability on a partial level, and it is based on her claim concerning a feminine-matrixial difference that escapes the phallic opposition of masculine/feminine and is produced in a process of co-emergence. Ettinger works from the very late Lacan, yet, from the angle she brings, it is the structure of the Lacanian subject itself that is deconstructed to a certain extent, and another kind of feminine dimension appears, with its hybrid and floating matrixial gaze.[18]

Ways of Seeing: viewing women in Renaissance paintings[edit]

John Berger, in his book Ways of Seeing, stated that "according to usage and conventions which are at last being questioned but have by no means been overcome — men act and women appear. Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at."[19] In Renaissance images nude women were painted almost exclusively for the male viewer.[citation needed] Women are often depicted with their bodies turned towards the viewer while their heads are turned away and gazing in a mirror.[citation needed] The woman is aware of being the object of the male gaze.[citation needed]

This ties into Lacan's theory of the alienation that results from the split between seeing oneself and seeing the ideal. In Renaissance nude painting this is the split that comes from being both the viewer, the viewed and seeing oneself through the gaze of others.[20]

Women and the gaze[edit]

Griselda Pollock, in her article, "Modernity and the Spaces of Femininity" argues that the female gaze can often be visually negated.[21] Pollock claims Robert Doisneau's photo Sidelong Glance supports this argument. In the photo, a middle-aged bourgeois couple are looking around an art gallery. The spectator view of the picture is from inside the shop but the couple are looking in different places than the view of the spectator. The woman is commenting on an image to her husband, while the husband is being distracted by a nude female painting. The nude female painting is hung with view of the spectator. The woman is looking at another image, but it is out of view of the spectator. The man's gaze has found something more interesting and he has chosen to ignore the woman's comment. The woman is also in contrast to the nude female in the painting, and instead of passively accepting the male gaze, she presents herself as "actively returning and confirming the gaze of the masculine spectator".[21]

Lorraine Gamman has suggested that a female gaze can be distinguished from that of a male through its displacing of scopophilic power, not simply the inversion of the male gaze, which creates the possibility of a multiplicity of viewing angles. In fact, for Gamman, “the female gaze cohabits the space occupied by men, rather than being entirely divorced from it.”[22] Thus, for Gamman, the role of the female gaze is not to appropriate the traditional male form of "voyeurism;" its purpose is to disrupt the Phallocentric power of the male gaze by providing for other modes of looking.

Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin suggest that Mulvey’s “male gaze” coincides with "the desire for visual immediacy,” the erasure of the medium for uninhibited interaction with the object portrayed, which feminist film theorists treat as “a male desire that takes an overt sexual meaning when the object of representation, and therefore desire, is a woman.”[23] However, Bolter and Grusin consider their term “hypermediacy,” the drawing of attention to the medium (or media) and the mediating processes present in a work, to be a manifestation of Gamman’s female gaze because it “is multiple and deviant in its suggestion of multiplicity—a multiplicity of viewing positions and a multiplicity of relationships to the object in view, including sexual objects.”[24] According to Bolter and Grusin, then, hypermediacy, much like the female gaze, works to disrupt the myopic and monolithic male gaze by offering more angles of viewing.

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Eaton, E.W. (September 2008). "Feminist Philosophy of Art". Philosophy Compass 3 (5): 873–893. doi:10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00154.x. 
  2. ^ "Feminist Aesthetics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2012. Retrieved May 13, 2015. 
  3. ^ Devereaux, M. (1995). "Oppressive Texts, Resisting Readers, and the Gendered Spectator: The 'New' Aethetics". In Brand, P.Z.; Korsmeyer, C. Feminism and Tradition in Aesthetics. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press. p. 126. 
  4. ^ Walters, S.D. (1995). Material Girls: Making Sense of Feminist Cultural Theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-520-08977-8. 
  5. ^ Weeks, L.P. (2005). "Male Gaze". In Ritzer, G. Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. p. 467. ISBN 978-0-7619-2611-5. 
  6. ^ a b c d e f Mulvey, Laura (1985). Nichols, Bill, ed. Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. University of California Press. pp. 303–315. 
  7. ^ Streeter, Thomas; Hintlian, Nicole; Chipetz, Samantha; and Callender, Susanna (2005). This is Not Sex: A Web Essay on the Male Gaze, Fashion Advertising, and the Pose. web essay about the male gaze in advertising. Retrieved from
  8. ^ Mulvey, Laura: Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema (1975, 1992), p. 14.
  9. ^ a b c d e Sassatelli, Roberta. Interview with Laura Mulvey: Gender, Gaze and Technology in Film Culture. Theory, Culture & Society, September 2011, 28(5) p. 127.
  10. ^ a b Pritchard and Morgan, Annette and Nigel (2000). "Privileging the Male Gaze". Annals of Tourism Research (27.4): 884–905. 
  11. ^ Modules on Lacan, On the Gaze
  12. ^ A Female Gaze? PDF (96.7 KiB)
  13. ^ The Female Gaze
  14. ^ Eileen Kelly, "The Female Gaze", Salon, Jan. 30, 2003.
  15. ^ Sassatelli, Roberta. Interview with Laura Mulvey: Gender, Gaze and Technology in Film Culture. Theory, Culture & Society, September 2011, 28(5) p. 127.
  16. ^ Sassatelli, Roberta. Interview with Laura Mulvey: Gender, Gaze and Technology in Film Culture. Theory, Culture & Society, September 2011, 28(5) p. 128.
  17. ^ Ettinger, Bracha. The Matrixial Gaze. University of Leeds, 1995
  18. ^ Ettinger, Bracha. "The With-in-Visible Screen." In: Catherine de Zegher (ed.), Inside the Visible, MIT Press, Boston, 1996.
  19. ^ Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. Penguin Group, 1972. p. 45,47
  20. ^ Sturken, Marita and Lisa Cartwright. Practices of Looking: an introduction to visual culture. Oxford University Press, 2001. p. 81.
  21. ^ a b Pollock, Griselda. "Modernity and the Spaces for Femininity". Routledge, 1988. pp. 50-90.
  22. ^ Gamman and Marshment, L. and M. (1989). The Female Gaze: Women as Viewers of Popular Culture. Seattle: The Real Comet Press. p. 16. ISBN 0-941104-42-7. 
  23. ^ Bolter and Grusin, J.D. and R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-262-02452-5. 
  24. ^ Bolter and Grusin, J.D. and R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-262-02452-5.